Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Grounded Theory Presentation

Grounded Theory: A specific methodology developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) for the purpose of building theory from data. In their book the term grounded theory is used in a more sense to denote theoretical constructs derived form qualitative analysis of data.

Grounded Theory Introduction:Brief explanation of each:What is Grounded Theory?Goals and Perspectives of Grounded TheoryOverview of Grounded TheoryRationale for Grounded TheoryMethods of Grounded TheoryEssential of Grounded Theory

In comparative analysis different groups or subgroups of people are compared and their differences build into theory. The theory is then tested and refined by considering it with other comparison groups. Looking at the data we begin to ascertain patterns in the data/behavior which can lead to general concepts about it. These concepts can then be built into broader theoretical propositions which can then be evaluated and tested with other comparison groups.&quot;In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence, then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept&quot; (p. 23). These conceptual categories can then be explored in other comparison groups, which may support the categorical concept or suggest modifications to make it more generalizable.In the pure pursuit of theory generation accurate evidence and verification are not that important, but often researchers get caught up in these two areas (because they are part of the current reward system) and thus limit the possibilities and narrow their range of potential theory generation.Theory generation doesn&apos;t require lots of cases. One case could be used to generate conceptual categories and a few more cases used to confirm the indication (p. 30). &quot;(The researcher&apos;s) job is not to provide a perfect description of an area, but to develop a theory that accounts for much of the relevant behavior&quot; (p. 30).

Goals and Perspective of Grounded Theory:The phrase &quot;grounded theory&quot; refers to theory that is developed inductively from a corpus of data. If done well, this means that the resulting theory at least fits one dataset perfectly. This contrasts with theory derived deductively from grand theory, without the help of data, and which could therefore turn out to fit no data at all.Grounded theory takes a case rather than variable perspective, although the distinction is nearly impossible to draw. This means in part that the researcher takes different cases to be wholes, in which the variables interact as a unit to produce certain outcomes. A case-oriented perspective tends to assume that variables interact in complex ways, and is suspicious of simple additive models, such as ANOVA with main effects only.Part and parcel of the case-orientation is a comparative orientation. Cases similar on many variables but with different outcomes are compared to see where the key causal differences may lie. This is based on John Stuart Mills&apos; (1843, A system of logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive) method of differences -- essentially the use of (natural) experimental design. Similarly, cases that have the same outcome are examined to see which conditions they all have in common, thereby revealing necessary causes.The grounded theory approach, particularly the way Strauss develops it, consists of a set of steps whose careful execution is thought to &quot;guarantee&quot; a good theory as the outcome. Strauss would say that the quality of a theory can be evaluated by the process by which a theory is constructed. (This contrasts with the scientific perspective that how you generate a theory, whether through dreams, analogies or dumb luck, is irrelevant: the quality of a theory is determined by its ability to explain new data.)Although not part of the grounded theory rhetoric, it is apparent that grounded theorists are concerned with or largely influenced by emic understandings of the world: they use categories drawn from respondents themselves and tend to focus on making implicit belief systems explicit.

Overview of Grounded Theory : Six PhasesGrounded theory begins with a research situation. Within that situation, your task as researcher is to understand what is happening there, and how the players manage their roles. You will mostly do this through observation, conversation and interview. After each bout of data collection you note down the key issues: this I have labeled &quot;note-taking&quot;.Constant comparison is the heart of the process. At first you compare interview (or other data) to interview (or other data). Theory emerges quickly. When it has begun to emerge you compare data to theory.The results of this comparison are written in the margin of the note-taking as coding. Your task is to identify categories (roughly equivalent to themes or variables) and their properties (in effect their sub-categories).PHASE 1: Data collection: You will of course keep your eyes open. There is a lot to be learned just by observing, some of it evident within minutes of entering a situation. Interviews are frequently the main source of the information you will develop your theory from. But any data collection methods can be used. Focus groups are not uncommon in other qualitative research, and are suited to grounded theory. So is informal conversation, group feedback analysis, or any other individual or group activity which yields data.PHASE 2: Note Taking: Glaser recommends against recording or taking notes during an interview of other data collection session. Speaking for myself, I agree with his avoidance of tape recordings and word-by-word transcripts. I think you’ll get more understanding from the extra interviews you could do in the time it would take you to listen to and transcribe a tape recording.PHASE 3: Coding: So -- in reality or in imagination -- you have in front of you a set of interview notes. They are written in the left hand two-thirds of the page, let’s say. You’ve identified any important bio-data about the person interviewed at the head of the notes (this may later help to identify properties).Have some other pieces of paper, or preferably cards, for memoing. The benefits of that will become evident soon. You begin to code. You take a sentence at a time and examine it. A. Constant comparison: For the first interview you are merely asking yourself: What is going on here? What is the situation? How is the person managing that situation? Therefore, what categories (plural) are suggested by that sentence?Code the second interview with the first interview in mind. Code subsequent interviews (or data from other sources) with the emerging theory in mind. That’s constant comparison: initially comparing data set to data set; later comparing data set to theory.B. Categories and properties: In effect, a category is a theme or variable which makes sense of what your informant has said. It is interpreted in the light of the situation you’re studying, and other interviews, and the emerging theory. In the two sentences considered above, I’ve already mentioned &quot;organizing&quot; as a tentative category. What is different between the two sentences is this: one is about organizing time, one about organizing work. Perhaps this will be a property, a sub-category, of organizing. C. Core category: After a time one category (occasionally more) will be found to emerge with high frequency of mention, and to be connected to many of the other categories which are emerging. This is your core category. It is hazardous to choose a core category too early in the data collection. However, when it is clear that one category is mentioned with high frequency and is well connected to other categories, it is safe to adopt this as the core category.(If more than one core category emerges, Glaser recommends focusing at one time on one only. You can recode for the second of them later, if you wish.)D. Saturation: In collecting and interpreting data about a particular category, in time you reach a point of diminishing returns. Eventually your interviews add nothing to what you already know about a category, its properties, and its relationship to the core category. when this occurs you cease coding for that category. E: Sampling: Your initial sample is likely to be defined by your choice of research situation. If there are many people associated with the situation, you might begin by putting together as diverse a sample as you are able. (I don’t recall anywhere that Glaser offers a clear description of the beginning sample, though I may be mistaken there.)As categories emerge from your data, you then seek to add to your sample in such a way that you further increase diversity in useful ways. Your purpose is to strengthen the emerging theory by defining the properties of the categories, and how those mediate the relationship of category to category.Glaser and Strauss refer to this as theoretical sampling. The sample is emergent, as is the theory and the method generally.PHASE 4: Memoing: Continues in parallel with data collection, note-taking and coding. In effect, a memo is a note to yourself about some hypothesis you have about a category or property, and particularly about relationships between categories.Glaser makes the point, and I agree, that memoing is given high priority. As an idea occurs to you, pause in what you are doing and write a memo to yourself. I carry a pocket full of 125 mm x 75 mm system cards in my pocket most of the time, for jotting down memos.In time your core category and the categories related to it will have saturated. By the time this happens you will have accumulated a large number of memos. Between them they will capture the different aspects of the theory which has emerged from your data.PHASE 5: Sorting Glaser reason for using cards for memoing is twofold. They are easier to carry, so I can jot down ideas whenever they occur to me. They are easier to sort. For the actual sorting I work on a large table or on the floor. First I group them on the basis of the similar categories or properties they address. I then arrange the groups to reflect on the sorting surface their relationship. The intention is that their layout in two-dimensional space will capture the structure of the eventual report or thesis. Then, gather the cards in the sequence which will allow the structure to be described. This provides the basis for the writing up, which follows. To PHASE 6: Writing: Writing up having done all this -- coding, memoing, sorting -- the writing is less a chore than it might otherwise be. The sort structure is the report structure. It is often just a matter of preparing a first draft by typing up the cards in sequence and integrating them into a coherent argument.

II: What Theory is GeneratedGrounded theory can appear in various forms. &quot;Grounded theory can be presented either as a well-codified set of propositions or in a running theoretical discussion, using conceptual categories and their properties&quot; (p. 31). The authors prefer the discussion form, because it is often easier to comprehend and tends not to &quot;freeze&quot; the theory in a set of propositions.Comparative analysis can generate two types of theory -- substantive and formal. Substantive theory is developed for a specific area of inquiry, such as patient care, professional education, delinquency, etc. Formal theory is for a conceptual area of inquiry such as stigma, deviant behavior, formal organization, socialization, reward systems, etc.It is often best to begin with generating substantive theory from data and then let formal theory or revisions to existing formal theory emerge from substantive theory instead of using logic to deduce substantive theory from formal theory. More studies generating substantive theory will ultimately generate and improve formal theory.

Four General Approaches to the Analysis of Qualitative Data:Converting Qualitative Data – If the analyst wishes to convert qualitative data into crudely quantifiable form so that he can provisionally test a hypothesis, he codes the data first and then analyzes it. Efforts are made to code all relevant data [that] can be brought to bear on a point,” and then systematically assembles, assesses and analyzes these data in a fashion that will “constitute proof of given proposition.” Generating Theoretical Ideas – If the analyst wishes only to generate theoretical ideas– new categories and their properties, hypotheses, and interrelated hypotheses– he cannot be confined to the practice of coding first and then analyzing the data since, in generating theory, he is constantly redesigning and reintegrating his theoretical notions as he receives his material. Analysis after the coding operation would not only unnecessarily delay and interfere with his purpose, but the explicit coding itself often seems and unnecessary, burdensome task.One that combines… the by an analytical procedure of constant comparison, the explicit coding procedure of the first approach and the style of theory development of the second. The purpose of the constant comparative method of joint coding and analysis is to generate theory more systematically than allowed by the second approach., by using explicit coding and analytical procedures.Analytical Induction - Combines the 1st and 2nd approaches in a manner different from the constant comparative method. Concerned with the generating an proving an integrated, limited, precise, universally applicable theory of causes accounting for specific behavior.

Comparison of Grounded TheoryUse of approaches to Qualitative AnalysisAll four methods provide different alternatives to qualitative analysis. The table locates the use of these approaches to qualitative analysis and provides a scheme for locating additional approaches according to their purposes. The general idea of the constant comparative method can also be used for generating theory in quantitative research.

V: The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative AnalysisCurrently analyzing qualitative data usually involves coding the data to get some quantifiable means to test some hypotheses. Glaser and Strauss advocate combining coding with analysis to help locate and build grounded theory.In this method the data is coded only enough to generate categories and hypotheses. The authors describe four main stages:Comparing incidents applicable to each categoryBegin by coding the data into as many categories as possible. Some categories will be generated from himself, some from the language and data of the research situation. As you find more instances of the same category code you will being to refine your ideas about that category. At this point it&apos;s best to stop coding and record a memo of these ideas.2. Integrating Categories and their PropertiesThe constant comparative method will begin to evolve from comparing incidents to focusing on emergent properties of the category. Diverse properties will start to become integrated. The resulting theory will begin to emerge by itself.3. Delimiting the TheoryEventually the theory solidifies, and there are fewer changes to the theory as the researcher compares more incidents. Later modifications include taking out irrelevant properties of the categories, integrating details of properties into an outline of interrelated categories. More importantly, the researcher will begin to find ways to delimit the theory with a set of higher level concepts. He/she will find ways to generalize the theory more as they continue to make constant comparisons against it. The number of categories will be reduced.New categories are often created halfway through coding, and it usually isn&apos;t necessary to go back and code for them. You only need to code enough to saturate the properties of the category. Later you can evaluate your categories and emergent theory by moving on to new comparison groups.4. Writing Theory&quot;When the researcher is convinced that his analytic framework forma a systematic substantive theory, that it is reasonably accurate statement of the matters studied, and that it is couched in a form that others going into the same field could use -- then he can publish his results with confidence&quot; (p. 113).This methodology tends to result in a &quot;developmental&quot; theory, which lends itself to further evolution. It&apos;s an inductive rather than deductive approach.

Properties of the Theory: Diversity in the data, means that each incident is compared with other incidents, or with properties of a category, in terms of as many similarities and differences as possible:Crude Proofs – such coding only establishes whether an incident indicates the few properties of the category that are being counted.“Developmental” Theory – Constant comparison of incidents tends to create it. Can be used to generate static theories, but facilitates the generation of theories of process, sequence, and change pertaining to organizations, positions, and social interaction.

Interplay between Philosophy, Methodology, and Methods in Grounded Theory Research:How do these three components: Philosophy, Methodology, and Methods interplay with one’s Grounded Theory Research?According to Birks a &amp; Mills, 2011), one of the key aims in doctoral research programs , and to certain extent other graduate programs is to instill in students knowledge of various philosophies and in turn the methodologies and methods that are linked to these schools of thought.It is important to understand the difference between a methodology and a set of methods. Stemming from a congruent philosophy, a methodology is a set of principles and ideas that inform the design of a research study.Methods on the other hands, are practical procedures used to generate and analyze data.There is a fluid interplay that occurs between methodology and methods in the process of undertaking a research study is represented in the cross-over between the three.The methodological framework with its underpinning philosophy influence&apos;s how the researcher works with the participants, in other words the position they take in the study. Depending on the philosophical beliefs and adopted methodology, researchers take either a position of distance or acknowledged inclusion in both the field and in the final product of the study. As well, and crucially for grounded theory, the methodology subscribed to influences the analysis of the data as it focuses the researchers attention to different dynamics and alerts them to possible analytical configurations in the process of conceptual and theoretical abstractions.

Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation

Glaserian method emphasizes conceptualization abstract of time, place and people. A grounded theory concept should be easy to use outside of the substantive area where it was generated.Strauss named three basic elements every grounded theory approach should include. These three elements are:Theoretical sensitive coding, that is, generating theoretical strong concepts from the data to explain the phenomenon researched;theoretical sampling, that is, deciding whom to interview or what to observe next according to the state of theory generation, and that implies starting data analysis with the first interview, and writing down memos and hypotheses early;the need to compare between phenomena and contexts to make the theory strong.

Major Milestones explained behind Grounded Theory:The Grounded Theory Generation Table (Birks &amp; Mills):The table is ordered chronologically and lists those works considered to be seminal grounded theory texts because they are characterized by their originality of thought and subsequent influence.Over the years much has been made of a supposed split between Strauss and Glaser following the publication of Strauss and Corbin’s text Basics of qualitative research : Grounded theory procedures and techniques.There are frequent references to Glaser and Strauss’s different perspectives on grounded theory in the literature. Often a researcher will demonstrate a sometimes almost fanatical ) adherence to either traditional Glaserian or and evolved Straussian version of grounded theory. There are still some Black and White issues among grounded Theory with different researchers, especially when it comes to research with and overly interpretive component, and there is much to be learned from a antecedent grounded theorist.

Basics of Qualitative Research

Constructing Grounded Theory

Explanation of Charmaz Models and Process from the textbook chaptersGather Rich Data – consider decision about getting started and choosing approaches to data gathering. Researcher can use grounded theory strategies with a variety of data collection methods.Coding as Grounded Theory Practice – shows how to do coding and thus label bits of data according to what they indicate.Memo Writing – Shows how the grounded theorist take the codes apart and analyze them in memos. You write memos throughout your research.Theoretical Sampling , Saturation, and Sorting – The grounded theory strategy of obtaining further selective data to refine and fill out your major categories. Reconstructing Theory in Grounded Theory Studies - Reassess what theory means. Explore meanings of theory in the social sciences and conceptions of theorizing in grounded theory. Writing the Draft – Differences between writing to develop and analysis and writing for an audience.Reflecting on the Process – Criteria for assessing grounded theories as products of research.

References

Part Three Grounded Theory ActivityActivity is to find concepts or name patterns in research you have already completed and jargonize it.Share with the class what you come up with.The idea is to get students to start thinking of generating theory from the research they have already conducted.Creating categories, then properties of the categories, then hypothesis, or relationships between all three.

LINKS:Barney Glaser on Jargonizing and grounded theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6RpQelvS1k&amp;feature=relatedBarney Glaser Grounded theory is the study of a concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&amp;v=OcpxaLQDnLk

4.
What is Grounded Theory? Grounded Theory: A specific methodology developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) for the purpose of building theory from data. In their book the term grounded theory is used in a more sense to denote theoretical constructs derived form qualitative analysis of data. (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)

5.
Goals and Perspective of Grounded Theory? The phrase "grounded theory" refers to theory that is developed inductively from a corpus of data. If done well, this means that the resulting theory at least fits one dataset perfectly. This contrasts with theory derived deductively from grand theory, without the help of data, and which could therefore turn out to fit no data at all. Grounded theory takes a case rather than variable perspective, although the distinction is nearly impossible to draw. This means in part that the researcher takes different cases to be wholes, in which the variables interact as a unit to produce certain outcomes (Borgatti, 2010)

6.
Overview of Grounded Theory?Over time, a grounded theory study works through the following mostly-overlapping phases. Phase 1 – Data Collecting • You will mostly do this through observation, conversation and interview. Phase 2 – Note Taking • After each bout of data collection you note down the key issues:: “note-taking". Phase 3 – Coding • As you code, certain theoretical propositions will occur to you. As the data collection and coding proceeds the codes . Phase 4 – Memoing • You group your memos, like with like, and sequence them in whatever order will make your theory clearest. Phase 5 & 6 – Sorting & Writing • The order of your sorted memos provides you with the skeleton, and many of the words, of your thesis. You begin writing. (Dick, 1990)

8.
Discovery of Grounded Theory Glaser and Strauss book is about discovering theory from data, what Glaser & Strauss call grounded theory. The major strategy they use is a general method of comparative analysis. They argue that much of current research is primarily the verification of theory or the development of theory through logical deduction rather than from the experimental data itself.

9.
Discovering Theory (Chapter 1) "In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence, then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept" (p. 23). These conceptual categories can then be explored in other comparison groups, which may support the categorical concept or suggest modifications to make it more generalizable.

10.
Verification and “Grand “ Theory (Chapter 1) Verification and Grand Theory Most research today is designed to verify existing theories, not generate new ones. Researchers eek out small gains of knowledge from existing "grand theories" rather than explore new areas not covered by existing theories. The existing research culture emphasizes and reveres good scientific, quantitative verification studies and downplays more qualitative studies whose objective is theory generation. Most theory is thus generated through logical deduction from past studies and knowledge and not from the data itself.

13.
•Generating Theory Glaser & Strauss (1967) suggested their theory generation, “puts a high emphasis on theory as process; that is, theory as an ever-developing entity, not as a perfected product” (p. 32).

16.
•Generating Theory Key aspects • Category – stands by itself as a conceptual element of a theory • Property- is a conceptual element of a category• Both category and property are indicated by the data (not data itself) • Constant comparing draws the researchers attention to similarities and differences • Generating theory should aim at achieving diversity in categories • Comparison of differences generates relationships or hypothesis • Concepts should be analytic (generalized to designate characteristics and sensitizing (have meaning)

17.
•Generating Theory Suggestions for researchers Glaser & Strauss (1967) • Ignore existing theory and focus on the study • Work in areas that have little to no literature already • Collection, coding, and analysis should be done together as much as possible

19.
Example of Grounded Theory Research Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant PedagogyGLORIA LADSON-BILLINGS CULTURALLY RELEVANT PEDAGOGY • Examined the pedagogical practices of eight elementary school teachers in a small town in North Carolina

21.
Constant Comparative Methods of Qualitative AnalysisApproaching Analysis & Alternatives to Qualitative Data: 1. Convert qualitative data…test the hypotheses – “All relevant data [that] can be brought to bear on a point,” and then systematically, assembles, assesses and analyzes thee data in a fashion that will “constitute proof for a give proposition.” 2. Only to generate theoretical ideas…new categories and their properties, hypothesis and interrelated hypotheses. Constantly redesigning and reintegrating - theoretical notions in reviewing the material. 3. One that is combined…analytic procedure of constant comparison --explicit coding of the 1st approach, and the style of theory development in the 2nd approach. 4. Analytical induction…combines the 1st and 2nd approaches in a manner different from the constant comparative method. Concerned with the generating an proving an integrated, limited, precise, universally applicable theory of causes accounting for specific behavior. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)

23.
Four Stages of The Constant Comparison Method 1. Comparing incidents applicable to each category : Starts by coding each incident in data into many categories of analysis as possible as categories emerge or as data emerge that fit an existing category. 2. Integrating categories and their properties: Process starts out in a small way; memos and possible conferences are short, But as coding continues, the constant comparison units change from comparison of incident with incident to comparison of incident with proprieties of the category that results form initial comparisons of incidents. 3. Delimitating the theory : As the theory develops, various delimiting features of the constant comparative method begin to curb what could otherwise become an overwhelming task. 4. Writing the theory : At this stage of qualitative analysis, the analyst possess coded data, a series of memos, and a theory. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)

24.
Properties of the Theory Diversity in the data, means that each incident is compared with other incidents, or with properties of a category, in terms of as many similarities and differences as possible: • Crude Proofs – such coding only establishes whether an incident indicates the few properties of the category that are being counted. • “Developmental” Theory – Constant comparison of incidents tends to create it. Can be used to generate static theories, but facilitates the generation of theories of process, sequence, and change pertaining to organizations, positions, and social interaction. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)

25.
Components of a Research Design There is a fluid interplay between methodology and method in the process of undertaking a research study. Represented in the crossover between each of the domains. (Birks & Mills, 2011)

26.
Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation Six key grounded theory methodologists examine the history, principles, and practices of this method, highlighting areas in which different strands of the methods diverge. A very useful and clarifying book arisen from a one-day symposium on advances in qualitative methods in Alberta, 2007. For the first time, the students of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, “the second generation” of grounded theory researchers, met to discuss grounded theory and its developments. Usage: In this volume they provide a description of the history, principles and practice of the grounded theory methods.

27.
Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation Glaserian GT Approach is not a qualitative research method, but claims the dictum "all is data". This means that not only interview or observational data but also surveys or statistical analyses or "whatever comes the researchers way while studying a substantive area" (Glaser quote) can be used in the comparative process as well as literature data from science or media or even fiction. Thus, Glaserian method emphasizes conceptualization abstract of time, place and people. Straussian GT Approach is that important concepts of grounded theory are categories, codes and codings. The research principle behind grounded theory is neither inductive nor deductive, but combines both in a way of abductive reasoning . This leads to a research practice where data sampling, data analysis and theory development are not seen as distinct and disjunct, but as different steps to be repeated until one can describe and explain the phenomenon that is to be researched. (Morse et al, 2009)

29.
Basics of Qualitative Research Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory Corbin and Strauss provide a step-by-step guide to the research act--from the formation of the research question through several approaches to coding and analysis, to reporting on the research. Full of definitions and illustrative examples, this book concludes with chapters that present criteria for evaluating a study, as well as responses to common questions posed by students of qualitative research. Usage: Significantly revised, Basics of Qualitative Research remains a landmark volume in the study of qualitative methods.

30.
Key Features: Basics of Qualitative Research • Allows for students to develop their critical thinking skills in the "Critical Issues" section at the end of each chapter. • Shows the actual steps involved in data analysis (from description to grounded theory) and data gathering by means of theoretical sampling. • Provides exercises for thinking, writing and group discussion that reinforces material presented in the text. • Consists of a student companion Web site at www.sagepub.com/corbinstudysite that includes real data and practice with qualitative software such as MAXQDA, as well as student practice exercises. (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)

31.
Constructing Grounded Theory at a Glance According to Charmaz (2006) , the organization of this book reproduces the logic of grounded theory in linear form. Its starts by gather data and end writing the analysis and reflecting on the entire process. In practice, however, the research process is not so linear. Grounded theorist stop and write when ever ideas occur to them. Some of the best ideas may occur to us late in the process and may lure us back to the field to gain a deeper view. Throughout the book , Charmaz treats grounded theory methods as constituting a craft that researchers practice. Like any craft, practitioners vary in their emphasis on one another aspect but taken together share commonalities, which is addressed in her book.

34.
•Part THREE: Grounded Theory Video Activity • The activity is to find concepts or name patterns in research you have already completed and jargonize it. • Share with the class what you come up with. • The idea is to get students to start thinking of generating theory from the research they have already conducted. • Creating categories, then properties of the categories, then hypothesis, or relationships between all three.

36.
Part FOUR: Discussion & Questions In summary, Grounded Theory is… a research method that will enable you to: • develop a theory which • offers an explanation about • the main concern of the population of your substantive area • and how that concern is resolved or processed.